LSX or FB3 ?

[buffo]

And for god sake can one of the ILDA members pull their finger out their arse and update the standard so this problem is fixed?
Do your job!

Graham, none of the ILDA members are paid anything. It's an all-volunteer organization. Their job is to run their business, not to participate in ILDA.

If you think you've got a solution to the ILDA file format problem, why not join ILDA and volunteer to head up a technical committee to re-design the ILDA file format? I'm sure lots of laserists would be thankful for your efforts.

Adam

[laserLips]

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to do so. I know a man who might, but he has been shund and burned at the steak.

[White-Light]

And for god sake can one of the ILDA members pull their finger out their arse and update the standard so this problem is fixed? What do they do all day, watch day time TV, sipping on mugs of tea while discussing knitting patterns?
Do your job!

There will probably never be another ILDA file standard agreed, I think its essentially been left to legacy now as a hobbyist standard.

Almost all major software manufacturers now have their own standard and support ILDA import as legacy only.

I believe the problem with the ILDA standard has been that allegedly traditionally getting agreement on a standard has been difficult (I believe the last one took more than 5 years to agree) and that because manufacturers now implement different features in different ways, it has become nigh on impossible to come up with a file standard for saving that information that is compatible across the industry with everyone's software. Hence the reason why I believe almost all major manufacturers have turned to proprietary formats.

[White-Light]

I'm using the V 1.60 build 509, and per example is the "one cue"-> "set one cue per projection zone" is working for you ? for me on quick show it's ok, but not on beyond, so it as no sense doing a party with 2 fb3 displaying the same frame.

I had a reply from Alexey.

ATM you can't run that feature with transitions enabled due to differences in the internal architecture of Beyond caused by the addition of other advanced modules. Its possible that may change in the future but for the moment you need to have transitions turned off if using the One cue pre zone feature.

[dzodzo]

it's just a question of whether the software developers are prone to supporting open formats or rather lock their userbase and keep profits
i believe it's not that hard to implement any new standard in existing software supposing you have detailed description of the format
saying "it's hard to agree on a standard" is a good excuse

[kl79]

I had a reply from Alexey.

ATM you can't run that feature with transitions enabled due to differences in the internal architecture of Beyond caused by the addition of other advanced modules. Its possible that may change in the future but for the moment you need to have transitions turned off if using the One cue pre zone feature.

Ok, thank you for your help !

[norty303]

I'd just like to say thanks for this thread, as it caused me to scratch the surface of abstracts.
I've spent the morning at work thinking about new things to try, particularly with controls and modulation. I think my subconscious processed a lot of stuff last night, as I feel like I've woken up with a better conceptual grasp of how to achieve what I want, rather than trial and error.
The effect ordering in Beyond synths is particularly powerful I'm thinking, being able to roto-clone an abstract, and then roto-clone that is going to result in some classic kaleidoscope images I think [hope!]
Now I just need to try and find time to do something with it!

[pschlosser]

There will probably never be another ILDA file standard agreed, I think its essentially been left to legacy now as a hobbyist standard.

Almost all major software manufacturers now have their own standard and support ILDA import as legacy only.

This problem is not unique to the ILDA standard. Standards, in general, are not easy to pass with majority consensus.

The ILDA standard could be improved to include ways to extend the standard, without the need to redefine it. But this presumes the committee is motivated to develop a new standard. Oftentimes, before the development of a standard, there is a period of everyone doing it their own way. Perhaps we're still in that period.

[james]

If you have ever taken a class in data structures and algorithms, you'll know that there is nothing very complicated about the ILDA file format.

It is an arrangement of ordered data types and as such, it defines its own inter-relationships and capabilities.

When you program, there are two kinds of rules or limitations. One is like a stop-sign. This kind of rule is imposed on the use of a data structure. If a programmer doesn't see it or understand it, then it is of no consequence and his code can go busting on through. The results might be seen by others as being wrong, but it still produces a data set that fits into the data type.

The other kind of limitation is like a brick wall. You can't store 32 bits of data in a 16 bit number. You can't differentiate more than 256 things with a single byte.

A good programmer will know the difference and write code that allows for every possible variation of data that might be found in a data set.

The biggest "mistake" of the ILDA file format spec is the fact that each section header does not define the size of the data elements that follow it. It only designates how many there are. So, if the format is extended, a file reader that was written before the extension won't know how far to jump ahead in the file to skip the unrecognized section. The reader has to stream through all the data looking for signs that it has come to the next section header.

Unfortunately, there is no way to fix this retroactively. It is what it is.

In this case, the best thing that can be done is to make sure the file format specification is well documented and readily available to the programming community.

James.

[swamidog]

absolutely!

i'll start an abstract thread so we can stay (vaguely) on topic here.

I'd just like to say thanks for this thread, as it caused me to scratch the surface of abstracts.
I've spent the morning at work thinking about new things to try, particularly with controls and modulation. I think my subconscious processed a lot of stuff last night, as I feel like I've woken up with a better conceptual grasp of how to achieve what I want, rather than trial and error.
The effect ordering in Beyond synths is particularly powerful I'm thinking, being able to roto-clone an abstract, and then roto-clone that is going to result in some classic kaleidoscope images I think [hope!]
Now I just need to try and find time to do something with it!